You're getting the equivalent of at least two single-player games for $60 if you make one Empire and one Republic character each. Just make sure you complete it within the 30 day window and that's all you'll have to pay, and it's definitely worth it.

You're getting the equivalent of at least two single-player games for $60 if you make one Empire and one Republic character each. Just make sure you complete it within the 30 day window and that's all you'll have to pay, and it's definitely worth it.

Quoting for truth. This game has been amazing and you can absolutely solo your way through the story and enjoy it.

Absolutely. The single player experience (and even group questing in zones) is a lot of fun. Pick out the class that looks the most fun and have at it. The game gives you a lot of abilities to use and you'll find yourself using the majority of them quite often.

I'm not even a Star Wars fan as I've never watched a movie before and I enjoyed the questing experience a good bit. I can only imagine a Star Wars fan would love it even more.

Akanbe -- absolutely. In the midst of Phantom Menace 3D re-release (barf) and Kinect Star Wars (double-barf), this is the only place where the franchise is still exhibiting an ounce of integrity. The same was true, sadly, 10 years ago when KOTOR was released.

Not that there's anything wrong with having fun with the franchise: I'm a huge fan of the LEGO Star Wars games, for example. But it's easier to be more free-form and silly with LEGO characters than with realistic characters mapped onto Dance Central dancers.

After taking a hiatus from the game, I'm replaying Sith Warrior again and am recording all the story cutscenes, as well as other quest content if it's entertaining. I've got about forty minutes worth of stuff so far with more to come as I get to it.

You may wish to consider that in the future you do not buy into the first sensationalist story posted by a non-gaming source (even from crappy sites like Kotaku you probably want to check more than one story) for you information on gaming news, when games are still used as an easy target by politicians and crappy "journalists".

Simply put, nobody was stupid enough to go "let's have a planet specifically for gays", but rather they said "because this game is fully voiced, we have to limit our implementation one step at a time, starting with a single planet in the next expansion". The worst you can accuse them of is having unfortunate implications, but honestly when another (more often voiced) complaint about the game is that they don't implement content fast enough, you're basically giving them no way to win in this scenario.

Sorry if I come off as being irritated, I get really really pissed off every time I see a shitty "journalist" report things they know is inaccurate for the sake of a sensationalist story.

You chose a really awful article to link to then, because not only does it have a sensationalist heading, it's clearly written in a way to rile up LGBT/supportive people by taking things out of context for people who don't understand how games work. Actually, if you had never played TOR, you would just think that this is someone doing something insanely stupid rather than it just being something a development progression forces it into.

Quote

Yes, you can't rewrite the past... but if it entails making a gay planet... maybe you should just keep the game straight.

No, you're still not getting it, because you're saying that it's a "gay planet", like within the context of the game's lore it's the only place in the galaxy with gays on it, which is inaccurate. Gameplay-wise it's the only place they're able to add gay interaction to because of the limitations that were, admittedly, placed by themselves. This doesn't mean that it's the only place in the lore of Star Wars that has gay people, simply that it's the only place you can access that gameplay aspect.

It is possible I'm wrong, of course, since the expansion isn't out yet, but I trust that they arn't stupid enough to do something like that, and if they do, I doubt it'd be handled distastefully when the whole purpose of implementing this to begin with was to satisfy LGBT players.

Quote

It's not like MMO really need romance anyway.

That would apply if TOR's main draw wasn't the story/character interaction. There's people that want to be able to have gay relationships with their companion characters (a pretty big part of TOR), so it just strikes me as insanely stupid that when they put effort into satisfying a demand from the customers there's people like that that report it as something it isn't.

For the record, that's not even what the people were asking for.This is just something that was cheaper than reworking the already existing companions which is what people wanted (although then you run into the everyone is bisexual problem; which is kind of a slap in the face to actual homosexuals and bisexuals)

In the end, this is Bioware saving the most money possible by implementing something in a terrible manner.

If you want to criticize them for not putting enough effort into the options, I get that. I just think it was a poor choice to link to an article that was clearly taking it out of context (Even the article that that article linked was quoted incorrectly, how awful of a journalist can you be, to actually cite an article and quote it incorrectly at the same time?) for the sake of going "look everyone, a game is implying being gay is bad because they're parking them all in a zoo-planet for gays!"

Considering how over-dramatized marriage and relationships are in the media, I'd be damn happy if gay/straight/bisexual/beastial dating and marriage stayed the fuck out of my video games. People have enough problems with these concepts in reality, why destroy the logic with ridiculous virtual versions that make even less sense.

Well... yeah. Cost-effectiveness is pretty much a thing when it comes to running a business. There is precious little to be gained from redoing old content to incorporate same-sex relationships in a game that had to switch to a free-to-play model just to please investors and keep the game sustainable. The cheaper choice would be to not add it at all - of which then, they'd be failing to meet a promise they made. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.